>we're clearly splitting microscopic hairs if you're going so far to call a logo a market to have "monopoly" over Your claim that we're splitting hairs, micros

>we're clearly splitting microscopic hairs if you're going so far to call a logo a market to have "monopoly" over Your claim that we're splitting hairs, microscopic or otherwise, is not strengthened by adding the word "clearly." If you don't like calling a trademarked logo a monopoly then I suggest you take it up with Wikipedia. Go ahead and edit at least these pages to correct their errors which tend to confuse trademarks with government-granted monopolies, something that is "clearly" a mistake according to you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly >Even if governments didn't exist, people find all kinds of ways to differentiate "value" from brands. The entire hobbyist collectors market works this way. Works what way? I have no idea what you're talking about. >Governments just make it easier for people who can hire lawyers to assert this Without governments there wouldn't even be lawyers. >Much easier to send out a C&D (which stops most infractions) Who's going to listen to a "C&D" if the government is unwilling to enforce it? Again, there would not be big corporations without patents, copyrights, trademarks, and other forms of government-granted monopolies. If you think there somehow would be, I'd love to hear it.